NRC Continues to Be A Top Performer in the Annual Employee Work Survey

Every year, the Office of Personnel Management surveys federal workers for their level of satisfaction with their jobs, and their take on their agency’s leadership and organizational culture,

The NRC has traditionally scored well – often significantly higher than most other government agencies. And the NRC – even when faced with government-wide issues associated with pay and budgets – continues to rank in the top performing agencies for 2013. We remain first in “Leadership and Knowledge Management,” second in “Job Satisfaction” and third in “Results-Oriented Performance Culture” categories.

• higher than the government average in employees rating the quality of their work;

• higher than the government average in employees knowing how their work relates to the agency mission; and

• higher than the government average in employees believing the agency is accomplishing its mission.

Also, eight in ten NRC employees recommend their organization as a good place to work – as compared to six in 10 employees government wide. And the NRC scored high on work/life questions that reflects how hard we work to attract and keep high-performing employees through such things as telework opportunities and alternative work schedules.

But we also saw some indications of dissatisfaction among employees primarily related to pay, promotions, resources and training opportunities. These are issues across the federal government, as the NRC and other agencies confront the dual challenge of sequestration’s impacts and pay freezes several years running. The NRC, for example, cut its external training budget in half – a decision that helped save the agency from having to resort to furloughs as an option for reducing the impact of sequestration.

It’s important to note that the FEVS survey is one tool the NRC uses to assess employee opinions and make key course corrections when necessary. The NRC’s Office of the Inspector General also does a “safety culture” survey every few years, which we study closely and use as the impetus for needed operational and/or organizational changes.

As we have in the past, we’ll use the information in both the FEVS survey and the recent OIG survey to guide changes we feel we need to make to keep this organization meeting its important safety and security mission – and assuring the NRC continues to be an attractive employer for talented and dedicated professionals.

5 responses to “NRC Continues to Be A Top Performer in the Annual Employee Work Survey”

I didn’t mean incentives to take the survey, I meant being told what answers to write that would make the organization “look good”. That is what happened at hospital I worked at and also what those students wrote about the music teacher. Though in that case, the public found out the truth by the way the musical sounded! What is being done to make sure those answers are the truth?

But really do people feel that way? How do we know this survey is not rigged? I once worked at a hospital where whenever there was a “best place to work survey” we were told by our supervisors that is we filled the survey out to be the best place to work we would receive days off we want, get assignments we want, and might even recieve promotions but we had to be top-rated. If one of us told the truth – it was not such a great place to work – it would bring the score down and people would not get those things. So all the hype about this hospital being one of the best places to work was a total lie. Are NRC supervisors telling their people to “make us look good” to get the days off they want?

Another example of this pressure is our high school had a music teacher who was nasty, she taught chorus. Yet students were writing letters to the editor of the town newspaper telling how wonderful she was. Those were the students getting A’s in her classes. Meanwhile, the spring musical was the worst Brigadoon ever. When my father, who was hard of hearing, goes “Ugh, that Brigadoon” you know there is a bad problem. But the letter writers were lying. Again, how do we know something like this is not happenneding here?

An NRC employee here. For myself, I can say that there has been no coersion or incentives by management to take the survey. If it helps, this is the email text we received asking us to complete the survey:

2013 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey: Employees Influencing Change

When it comes to knowing what it’s like to work in the Federal Government, you’re the expert. Your feedback helps provide a more complete picture of our Federal workforce. We can’t get that complete picture without your wisdom, your insight, and your honesty.Please take a few moments of your time to complete the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey and help influence change in your agency.

click here to access your survey

If the link does not take you directly to the survey, copy and paste the following into a browser window:

Please DO NOT forward this e-mail since it contains your personalized link to the survey. Answering the questions will take about 25 minutes, and you may use official time. While participation is voluntary, we hope you will respond. Your individual responses are confidential.

Please reply to this message if you have any questions or difficulties accessing the survey, or call our Survey Support Center toll free at: 1-855-OPM-FEVS (1-855-676-3387).

I can’t understand this. As a nuclear engineer, I can never imagine working for Jackzo or Macfarlane. I don’t even work for the NRC and it eats me up inside knowing that the likes of these can be appointed to run the NRC.

But the idea is that you say they are wonderful to the whole world, you get your days off you want – or you get an A in chorus. Who cares if you’re not telling the truth? Maybe those 2 said the same things about how wonderful their bosses were, hence why they are there.

Archives

Archives

Comments on blog posts do not represent official NRC communication, and links to internet sites other than the NRC website do not constitute the agency’s endorsement of that site’s content, policies or products. Please read our Disclaimer for more information.